Dataset Information

Cancer in the Shadow of COVID: Early-Stage Breast and Prostate Cancer Patient Perspectives on Surgical Delays Due to COVID-19.

ABSTRACT:

Background

During the height of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, elective surgeries, including oncologic surgeries, were delayed. Little prospective data existed to guide practice, and professional surgical societies issued recommendations grounded mainly in common sense and expert consensus, such as medical therapy for early-stage breast and prostate cancer patients. To understand the patient experience of delay in cancer surgery during the pandemic, we interviewed breast and prostate cancer patients whose surgeries were delayed due to the pandemic.

Patients and methods

Patients with early-stage breast or prostate cancer who suffered surgical postponement at Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH) were invited to participate. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 21 breast and prostate cancer patients. Interviews were transcribed, and qualitative analysis using ground-theory approach was performed.

Results

Most patients reported significant distress due to cancer and COVID. Key themes that emerged included the lack of surprise and acceptance of the surgical delays but endorsed persistent cancer- and delay-related worries. Satisfaction with patient-physician communication and the availability of a delay strategy were key factors in patients' acceptance of the situation; perceived lack of communication prompted a few patients to seek care elsewhere.

Discussion

The clinical effect of delay in cancer surgery will take years to fully understand, but there are immediate steps that can be taken to improve the patient experience of delays in care, including elicitation of individual patient perspectives and ongoing communication. More work is needed to understand the wider experiences of patients, especially minority, socioeconomically disadvantaged, and uninsured patients, who encounter delays in oncologic care.

SUBMITTER: Sokas C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8231084 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (DFSP) may have a deceptively benign clinical appearance, including a nonprotuberant presentation. Patients with DFSP often perceive misdiagnoses and delays in receiving a diagnosis. Use of existing, patient-designed Facebook patient support groups (FBSGs) to recruit large numbers of patients with rare diseases may be an effective novel research method. Objectives:To collaborate with patients with rare disease through social media and answer questions important to both patients and the medical field, including sources of diagnostic delay, risk of recurrence, and flat presentation of DFSP. Design, Setting, and Participants:A multiple-choice survey created by a team of medical practitioners and patients with DFSP was administered to 214 patients with DFSP or family members from international DFSP FBSGs and a nonprofit foundation patient database via Lime Survey from October 30 to November 20, 2015. The survey asked questions designed to determine risk of recurrence and metastasis, surgical outcomes, sources of diagnostic delay, symptoms of recurrence, number of recurrences, scar size, and number of clinicians seen before biopsy. Statistical analysis was performed from January 1, 2016, to April 1, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures:The study goal was to collect at least 200 survey responses. Results:Of 214 survey respondents (169 females and 45 males; mean [SD] age, 40.7 [12.1] years; range, <1 to 72 years), 199 were patients with DFSP and 15 were family members. Delays occurred between the patient noticing the DFSP lesion and receiving a diagnosis of DFSP (median, 4 years; range, <1 to 42 years). Most patients (112 [52.3%]) believed that they received a misdiagnosis at some point: by dermatologists (35 of 107 [32.7%]), primary care clinicians (80 of 107 [74.8%]), or another type of physician (27 of 107 [25.2%]). The most frequent prebiopsy clinical suspicion included cyst (101 [47.2%]), lipoma (30 [14.0%]), and scar (17 [7.9%]). Many patients first noticed their DFSP as a flat plaque (87 of 194 [44.8%]). Of these lesions, 73.6% (64 of 87) became protuberant eventually. Surgical treatments included Mohs micrographic surgery (56 of 194 [28.9%]), wide local excision (122 of 194 [62.9%]), and conservative excision (16 of 194 [8.2%]). The reported rate of recurrence was 5.4% (3 of 56) for Mohs micrographic surgery, 7.4% (9 of 122) for wide local excision, and 37.5% (6 of 16) for conservative excision. The higher rate of recurrence for conservative excision was significant (P?=?.001); there was no significant difference in the rate of recurrence between Mohs micrographic surgery and wide local excision (P?=?.76). Conclusions and Relevance:This study reports what appears to be disease-relevant statistics from the largest survey of patients with DFSP to date. Because of the dissonance between the name of the neoplasm and its clinical presentation, the alternative term dermatofibrosarcoma, often protuberant is proposed. This study suggests that FBSGs are useful tools in medical research, providing rapid access to large numbers of patients with rare diseases and enabling synergistic collaborations between patients and medical researchers.

Project description:ObjectiveNational Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend that patients with ovarian cancer receive surgical care from a gynecologic oncologist. However, 15%-30% of patients with ovarian cancer do not receive surgical care from this specialist. The reasons for this remain unknown. We aim at assessing the barriers and attitudes perceived by patients with ovarian cancer who did not receive their primary surgery from a gynecologic oncologist and by diagnosing providers in an exploratory qualitative study.Materials and methodsPatients and providers were sampled through the Iowa Cancer Registry. Participants were interviewed by telephone about barriers that patients face receiving surgical care from a specialist. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and thematic analysis was completed by two team members.FindingsProviders (n = 10, 13% participation rate) identified many system-level barriers, including poor provider-to-provider communication, long time-to-surgery wait times, and a limited number of gynecologic oncologists working in their referral range. Patients (n = 16, 38% participation rate) denied system-level barriers; however, no patients reported receiving a referral to a gynecologic oncologist. This, in and of itself, constitutes a system-level barrier. Providers identified many barriers that their patients face, whereas patients failed to identify these barriers and denied facing them. Patients described the shock that they experienced after diagnosis and its limitations on their decision-making process. Both providers and patients agreed that the providers were influential in determining care decisions.DiscussionThere is a divergence in the perceptions of barriers to care between providers and patients. Open discussions are needed about options and clinical guidelines for surgical ovarian cancer care. Further research is needed to develop and evaluate mechanisms to improve provider-to-patient discussions about surgical recommendations.

Project description:BackgroundPatients diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) are confronted with a difficult decision regarding whether to undergo definitive treatment or to pursue an active surveillance protocol. This is potentially further complicated by the possibility that patients and physicians may place different value on factors that influence this decision. We conducted a qualitative investigation to better understand patient and physician perceptions of factors influencing treatment decisions for low-risk PCa.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted among 43 racially and ethnically diverse patients diagnosed with low-risk PCa, who were identified through a population-based cancer registry, and 15 physicians who were selected to represent a variety of practice settings in the Greater San Francisco Bay Area.ResultsPatients and physicians both described several key individual (e.g., clinical) and interpersonal (e.g., healthcare communications) factors as important for treatment decision-making. Overall, physicians' perceptions largely mirrored patients' perceptions. First, we observed differences in treatment preferences by age and stage of life. At older ages, there was a preference for less invasive options. However, at younger ages, we found varying opinions among both patients and physicians. Second, patients and physicians both described concerns about side effects including physical functioning and non-physical considerations. Third, we observed differences in expectations and the level of difficulty for clinical conversations based on information needs and resources between patients and physicians. Finally, we discovered that patients and physicians perceived patients' prior knowledge and the support of family/friends as facilitators of clinical conversations.ConclusionsOur study suggests that the gap between patient and physician perceptions on the influence of clinical and communication factors on treatment decision-making is not large. The consensus we observed points to the importance of developing relevant clinical communication roadmaps as well as high quality and accessible patient education materials.